On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 04:34:32PM -0400, Christopher Hicks wrote:
> >
> >When I read Mark's message I realized his point is what I'd been wanting
> >to say in the first place; so the more _I_ think about it, the more
> >DBIx:: seems like a completely inappropriate place for this module!
>
> How is doing a database backup any less of a DBI extension than DBIx::Copy
> or DBIx::HTMLView?
>
If I want to back up my MySQL dataqbase, why do I care what the
underlying library is? How does making it DBIx:: benefit the end user?
Seems like DBIx:: might be more reasonable if there were a whole
class of related backup libraries. But if there is just the singular one for
MySQL and not much chance of there being some portable equivalent for other
libs, perhaps it's better to not use the more generic namespace. That way
if someone later on writes a generic backup tool as a DBI extension the
namespace will be available and not polluted by unrelated tools.
*shrug*
Austin
